[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6599ad830901082226h6d47053cp801dafb67b6e2bc9@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 22:26:46 -0800
From: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"lizf@...fujitsu.com" <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] NOOP cgroup subsystem
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 9:32 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
<kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> Motivation: Simply classify Applications by cgroup
> When using cgroup for classifying applications, some kind of "control" or
> "account" subsys must be used. For flexible use of cgroup's nature of
> classifying applications, NOOP is useful. It can be used regardless of
> resource accounting unit or name spaces or some controls.
> IOW, NOOP cgroup allows users to tie PIDs with some nickname.
I agree that the idea is useful. But to me it seems to a bit
artificial that you still have to mount some kind of subsystem purely
to get the grouping, and that you can only have one such grouping.
I think I'd prefer the ability to mount a cgroups hierarchy without
*any* subsystems (maybe with "-o none"?) which would give you a
similar effect, but without you needing to know about a special no-op
subsystem, and would allow you to have multiple "no-op" groupings.
Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists